Thursday, 14 July 2016

Umar Khalid of the JNU has called Burhan Wani another Che Guevara. I would like to ask Umar three questions.

1. Che had an idelogy ( which one may or may not agree with ). What was the ideology of Burhan ? Was it Islamic fundamentalism ? And does Umar Khalid agree with that ?

2. Burhan Wani, and probably Umar too, want azadi for Kashmir.
Now the test of every government and every system is one, and only one : does it raise the standard of living of the people ?
If azadi for Kashmir will result in raising the standard of living of the Kashmiri people I will agree with them and will support the demand.
But Burhan and the other Kashmiri separatists, as well as Umar, never spoke, or speak, of this. They never discuss how azadi will result in raising the standard of living of the Kashmiri people. All they talk of is azadi. What they forget is that azadi can only be a means, not an end itself. The end must be raising the standard of living of the people, i.e. abolishing poverty, unemployment, malnourishment, corruption, price rise, lack of healthcare, etc.

3.Unless poverty and the other social evils mentioned above are abolished, there can never be genuine azadi. If Kashmir becomes azad from India, it will come under the rule of some other power, because a poor country cannot be economically independent, but must remain dependent on aid from some other country, and thus become subservient to that country.

I await Umar Khalid's answer. If he has not read this fb post, will someone from JNU or elsewhere forward it to him. My email id is mark_katju@yahoo.co.in

Burhan Wani, who was killed recently, is being hailed as a hero by many people.

But I regard him as only a pawn who was being used by some people. But which people ? Some say it was the Pakistanis, but in my opinion it was the Chinese. So let me explain my views.

The separatist Kashmiri militants are obviously getting arms, supplies and other kinds of help from some government. Arms and supplies do not fall from the sky. The question is which government ?

Now here we have to rely on some conjecture. We obviously will not get direct proof. But we can draw logical inferences and put two and two together. After all, apart from direct evidence there is also circumstantial evidence.

Pakistan had earlier allied itself to America, but after Modi took India firmly into the American camp, Pakistan had to seek a new sponsor. The only second super power in the world today after the collapse of the Soviet Union is China, and so now Pakistan has allied itself to China.

Today the established super power of the world, USA, and the rising super power, China, are on a collision course, as is evident from their disputes over the South China Sea, etc. The question is : who will control South Asia, with its markets, raw materials and cheap labour ?

Politics is concentrated economics, and so to understand politics, we must go behind it and see the real economic forces at work.

After years of economic growth, China has gone down from being the world's chief growth engine to becoming its biggest risk factor. While the Chinese still claim a growth rate of 6% in their GDP, more reliable sources say that the real growth rate is about 3%---a far cry from the double digit figures of growth of the Chinese economy for over a decade.

So to relieve their distress, China desparately need more markets for their goods, and cheap raw materials to lower their cost of production.

Of the two super powers, China is more dangerous to world peace. A rising super power is always more aggressive and expansionist, than an established one. For example, Hitler Germany, being a rising super power in the 1930s and 1940s, was more dangerous than the Western powers.

Today, China has a huge foreign exchange reserve, estimated at 3.23 trillion dollars in January 2016. This is a huge amount of hot money, hungrily looking for investment opportunities, markets to infiltrate and capture, and cheap raw materials, and indeed it has grabbed many in Asia and Africa, including some in India. So the victim of imperialism upto 1949 has itself become an imperialist now.

The dispute between USA, which is facing a recession, and China, whose economy has slowed down considerably, for control over South Asia, is now spilling over into India and Pakistan.

Modi has taken India firmly into the American camp. His recent visit to USA is only a culmination of the process started earlier.

So China is making its own counter moves. It is dominating Nepal, has come closer to Pakistan, and is arming the anti-Indian insurgency in Kashmir and the North East, in an attempt to carve out of India an area of its own influence and control.

Earlier, Pakistan was under the grip of Americans. But now that Modi has taken India firmly into the American camp, the Pakistanis, too, must find a new master, and the Chinese have decided to take a grip over Pakistan.

The Chinese-Pakistani trade, which was only of a few hundred million dollars a year upto the year 2000, has gone upto 16 billion dollars last year ( though heavily tilted in China's favour ).This was no doubt facilitated by the Free Trade Agreement between China and Pakistan which came into effect in January 2007. Also, today 47% of all Chinese international arms sales are to Pakistan.

In April 20, 2015, China’s President Xi Jinping visited Pakistan in what the government of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif self-flatteringly called a “historic occasion”. During this visit, Xi announced the Chinese plans to invest 46 billion US dollars in Pakistan’s transport and energy infrastructure, including the construction of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) that will connect Kashgar in China’s Xinjiang region with Gwadar Port in Balochistan over the next 15 years. Since that announcement, several high-level Chinese government officials and top executives of several Chinese companies, have visited Pakistan, and have shown keen interest in setting up Chinese industries in Pakistan.

The militants who keep committing terrorist acts in Kashmir, are obviously getting arms from some power. The only logical inference is that they are getting them from China, via Pakistan. Similarly, the militants in the North East appear to be getting arms from China. It is evident that China is on an expansionist path, as Japan was in the 1930s and 40s. But America too has its economic interests in South Asia to safeguard. So a collision is inevitable.

Of course,the Americans and Chinese will not fight each other themselves. They are both nuclear powers, and have too much invested in each other's economies for that. But there is nothing to stop them fighting proxy wars, which they will. And India ( and Pakistan ) are directly in the frontline.

I therefore have strong reasons to believe that the Kashmiri militancy is being covertly sponsored by China, though via Pakistan.

Of course Burhan Wani and many other separatist Kashmiri militants may not be aware of this, but when does a pawn know of the man who really moves it ?

Umar Khalid of the JNU has called Burhan Wani another Che Guevara. But Che had an idelogy ( which one may or may not agree with ). What was the ideology of Burhan ? Was it Islamic fundamentalism ?

I have said in an earlier post that if azadi for Kashmir will result in raising the standard of living of the Kashmiri people I will support it
. But the Kashmiri separatists never talk of this. They never discuss how azadi will result in raising the standard of living of the Kashmiri people. All they talk of is azadi. What they forget is that azadi can only be a means, not an end itself. The end must be raising the standard of living of the people, i.e. abolishing poverty, unemployment, malnourishment, corruption, price rise, lack of healthcare, etc

Wednesday, 13 July 2016

Today the real problem in India is that most Indians have backward minds, full of casteism, communalism and superstitions. And it is this backwarness which is the root cause of our poverty and a host of other socio-economic problems.

It is relatively easy to change the environment. It is much more difficult to change people's minds. But without changing people's minds, we cannot change the environment.

Our people must modernize. But what is the meaning of being modern ? Being modern does not mean wearing a smart suit or jeans or fancy skirt. It means having a modern mind, which means a rational mind, a logical mind, a scientific mind, and a questioning mind.

The ancient Greeks questioned everything ( read the works of Plato and Aristotle ) and that is why they made such great progress in mathematics, science, etc. Similarly, many of our ancestors questioned everything ( see my blog on 'Sanskrit as a language of Science' and 'Indian Philosophy' ). The method of shastrartha was developed, which were debates in which the participants questioned each other before an assembly.

But before the minds of our masses is changed, the minds of our educated class has to be changed, and made truly modern. Intellectuals give leadership to society, because without intellectuals society is blind. Unfortunately most of our so called educated section of society is not truly educated, and so they are not genuine intellectuals. Their heads are crammed with bookish knowledge, without adequate reflection and questioning, and lacking creativity.

So my job is to educate the 'educated' in India. I do not have to educate the uneducated masses. I target the 'educated', and once they get truly educated, my job will be over, for then these truly educated intelligensia will educate the masses.

Tuesday, 12 July 2016

I am giving some examples of the intolerance and bigotry of the Wahabis :

1. A Muslim friend of mine went to do Haj in Mecca. There he wanted to kiss the grave of the Prophet, but the Saudi police prevented him from doing so, saying this would be worship of a grave, when Islam permits worship of only Allah.

My friend explained that by kissing the grave he would only be showing his respect for the Prophet, not worshipping the grave, but the police did not listen to him.

The Saudis also do not permit building of dargahs, which are shrines built on graves of sufi saints, saying this would be butparasti or worship of graves. In fact when people visit dargahs they only show their respect to sufi saints who preached love, compassion and brotherhood, and not that they worship these graves.

2. When I was a Judge in Allahabad High Court a case came before me filed by Deobandis saying that they will not permit taking out of a procession in Sahranpur by Muslims on the occasion of Eid Milad un Nabi, or Bara Wafat, which is the birthday of the Prophet, since this would be worshipping the Prophet, while Islam says that only Allah should be worshipped. I told the petitioners that this was a free, secular country, and if they did not like such processions they need not take part in them, or even look towards them, but how can they be prohibited ? I dismissed the petition.

3. When I was a Judge in the Supreme Court, a case came before me in which the petitioners, who appeared to be Wahabis, said that an order be passed that no one should be allowed to say ' Ya Ali ' or ' Ya Gharib Nawaz '. I again dismissed this petition too, saying that this was a free, secular country, and so how could I prohibit saaying this ? The petitioners were free not to say it, but others were free to say it

I just cannot understand the attitude of Wahabis. If someone goes to a dargah, is he cutting off anyone's head, or chopping off anyone's limbs ? Hindus believe in several gods and goddesses, while Islam says there is only one god, Allah. But by saying there are many gods, are Hindus cutting off anyone's head, or chopping off anyone's limbs ?

Sunnis believe that after the Prophet's death there were 4 Khalifas, but Shias regard the first 3 as usurpers. Are Shias cutting off the heads of Sunnis or chopping off their limbs by believing this ?

Ahmediyas believe that in the 19th century there was another Prophet or Nabi called Ghulam Ahmed, though orthodox Muslims believe Mohammed was the last Prophet. Are Ahmediyas cutting off the heads of orthodox Muslims or chopping off their limbs by believing what they do ? At most orthodox Muslims may say that Ahmedis are non Muslims ( just as Ahmedis may say the same about orthodox Mulims ), but where is the justification of killing Ahmedis, burning their houses and mosques and beating up their children as is frequently done in Pakistan ? This is nothing but goondagardi.

This is a free, democraatic and secular country. Let anyone believe what he wants, and pray in whichever way he wishes.

This is a country of great diversity, and so there must be tolerance if the country is to hold together and progress. There is no place for Wahabis here. All religious extremists and bigots should be suppressed with an iron hand

His statement that the official figure of India's GDP growth of 7.9% is bogus, is correct. But his remedy for solving India's economic woes is superficial. He says that there must be increase in private investment in India.

But who will invest in India when there is a recession going on ? Where is the demand ? And there is lack of infrastructure, corruption, red tape, etc in many parts of India. Businessmen are not doing charity, but seek profits.

Most of the economists in the world are totally superficial, and have no genuine solution to the

worldwide recession.

Economists with high sounding degrees from Harvard, Yale, London School of Economics, etc have made economics an arcane, esoteric subject. But it is not so. Let me therefore explain the present crisis step by step:

1. The present world wide recession is due to slow down in manufacturing in most parts of the world. But why is there a slow down in production ? It is because of decline in sales, because who will manufacture if the goods manufactured cannot be sold ? And the decline in sales is because of decline of purchasing power in the masses. Let me explain.

2. There is competition in the market. To face the competition in the market and survive, industries have to reduce their cost of production, and for this they have to do two things (1 ) become more and more capital intensive, rather than labour intensive( to reduce labour costs ) and (2) become larger in size ( to effect economy of scale ).

3. Cost of labour is a big chunk of the total cost of production, and so by becoming capital intensive ( by introducing automation or new labour saving technology ) industrialists reduce their cost of labour, and thereby their cost of production. Even though they may have to pay interest on the loans taken from banks to buy the new machinery, this cost is far less than the saving in labour costs by laying off workers.

If an industry does not do this ( introduce automation or capital intensive machinery, and grow larger ) its rival will do it, by becoming larger and and reducing its labour costs, and thereby reducing its cost of production, and eliminate the former by underselling it. So every industry must do it to survive. But in the process it is generating widespread unemployment.

4. This is because the worker is not only a producer he is also a consumer. A steel worker does not merely produce steel, he and his family also consume food, clothing, shoes, and a host of other articles. If he loses his job his purchasing capacity is drastically reduced, and consequently he has to drastically reduce his consumption. He will now buy only essentials like food and medicines ( to survive ) but he stops buying most industrial goods like cars, gadgets, etc

This reduction in spending leads to reduction in sales, and since the same process is broadly followed in most industries, it leads to increasing unemployment, and thereby widespread reduction in the purchasing power of the masses

5. At the same time, industries have to grow larger in size . Large scale production means one can sell at a cheaper price than small scale production ( by effecting economy of scale e.g. by buying raw materials in bulk, and thereby cheaper ). If a businessman does not do that his business rival will do it, and thereby eliminate him by underselling him.

6. Thus the very dynamics of industrialization introduces two contradictory tendencies. On the one hand, production increases ( since industries are growing larger ). On the other hand, purchasing power decreases, as more and more unemployment is being generated ( as automation or capital intensive mashinery is introduced ). How will the goods produced be sold ? This contradictory tendency sooner or later results in a crisis, i.e. a recession, which leads to more unemployment, thus intensifying the crisis. It is a chain reaction.

7. The solution to the problem is therefore to increase the purchasing power of the masses. There is no difficulty in increasing production, but how will the goods produced be sold when most people do not have the money to buy ?

8. The French economist Jean Baptiste Say propounded his well known ' Say's Law ' which says that production will find its own demand, and Adam Smith in his ' The Wealth of Nations ' spoke of ' the invisible hand ' which will lead to unending progress.. But subsequent developments, particularly the Great Depression from 1929 to 1939 have proved these theories false. Keynes theory ( propounded in his book ' The General Theory of Employment, Money and Interest ' in 1936 ), which prescribes large scale government spending as the way out of the contradiction, was really a temporary palliative, and presents no real solution to the problem.

9. Hence the problem is not how to increase production ( that can easily be done with the large number of competent engineers and immense natural resources we have ) but how to raise the purchasing power of the masses, so that the goods produced can be sold. But how is this to be done ? This is the problem to which all serious thinkers must now apply their minds.

10. In socialist countries the method of raising the purchasing power of the masses, and thereby rapidly expanding the economy and consequently abolishing unemployment, was broadly this :

(a) Prices of commodities were fixed by the government.

(b) These prices were reduced by 5-10% every 2 years or so

(c) This resulted in steadily increasing the purchasing power of the masses, because with the same income people could buy more goods. In other words, the real income of the masses went up even if nominally it remained the same ( since real wage is relative to the price index ).

(d) Simultaneously, production was stepped up, and this increased production could be sold in the domestic market, as the purchasing power of people was steadily rising.

(e) This led to rapid expansion of the economy, leading to creation of millions of jobs and thereby abolition of unemployment.

During the Great Depression which hit the Western economies in 1929 ( it continued till the breakout of the Second World War in 1939, despite the New Deal of President Franklin Roosevelt ) when about one third or more people in Western countries were unemployed and factories were shutting down, the Soviet economy was rapidly expanding and unemployment abolished in the Soviet Union by following the above methodology.

Of course this was only possible in a socialist economy, where the problem was solved by state action.

I am not saying that we must necessarily follow the method adopted by socialist countries. We can adopt any other method if thereby we can raise the purchasing power of the Indian masses and thereby rapidly expand the Indian economy, which is the only way of eliminating the recession and abolishing unemployment in India.. The central point, and therefore the main problem before India, is how to raise the purchasing power of the masses ?

Monday, 11 July 2016

I am deeply sad at the recent incidents of violence in Kashmir after the killing of Burhan Wani, the Hizbul Mujahideen commander.

I am myself a Kashmiri, and I have always condemned atrocities against Kashmiris, whether Pandits or Muslims. The fact that presently Kashmiri Muslims are being killed or injured makes no difference. Their DNA is the same as mine.

However, I would like to express my views here.

The test of every system or political act is whethe...r it will raise the standard of living of the people.

Many Kashmiris demand azadi from India. If they can demonstrate that such azadi will raise the standard of living of Kashmiris I will support their demand. But Kashmiris never seek to demonstrate that. All they demand is azadi.

Kashmiris forget that azadi can only be a means to an end, not an end itself. The end must be raising the standard of living of Kashmiris. But Kashmiris never discuss how that will be achieved in an azad Kashmir ( assuming it is created ).

Moreover, the pro-Pakistani slogans blared out from loudspeakers of nearly all mosques in Kashmir, and the call to wage jihad, makes me very suspicious as to who is really behind this ' azadi ' struggle ?

So called ' freedom struggles ' having a religious colour e.g. the Sanyasi Revolt in Bengal in the late 18th century ( which is the historical background of Bankim Chandra's reactionary novel ' Anand Math ' ), Ayatollah Khomeini's movement, Muqtada al Sadr, ISIS, etc. tend to divide and weaken the peolple.

If azadi is achieved in Kashmir, will the outdated feudal Sharia Law be imposed there ? And if azadi means azadi from India but joining Pakistan, will the jackboots of the Pakistani army not fall on the necks of Kashmiris, replacing one jackboot by another ?

Real azadi is azadi from poverty, malnourishment, unemployment, hunger, lack of health care etc. Did Burhan Wani and his comrades ever think of this, and how it will be achieved in an azad Kashmir ? Have the 'brave' JNUSU and Jadavpur University students who supported this demand of azadi for Kashmir ever thought of that ?

It is not enough to be brave, it is also necessary to have brains, but about this I have my doubts

India has to take a Great Leap Forward, to rid itself of the feudal filth of casteism, communalism, superstitions, and other backward ideas, customs and practices which have accumulated over the centuries, and which are a huge obstacle and stumbling block on the path of our progress. Without this, we will be doomed to remain in our present state of poverty, malnutrition, unemployment, lack of healthcare and good education, etc.

For this, a mighty struggle has to be waged in the realm of ideas by our patriotic modern minded intelligensia, to replace the present feudal backward ideas with modern scientific ones, so that India emerges as a modern, powerful, highly industrialized country, with its people enjoying a high standard of living and leading decent lives.

A new idea usually arouses furious opposition at first from a large section of the people when it is presented, for example, the idea that there is nothing wrong for a non dalit to marry a dalit, or that there is nothing wrong in eating beef, or that wearing burqa is stupid. So the pioneers who initially advance such ideas will have to be ready for irate, hysterical, and often savage abuses, tirades, calumnies and denunciations.

But despite this hostility, the patriotic modern minded people must continue their struggle day in and day out for several years, perhaps even decades, talking not just to a small circle of people, but to everyone, patiently and coolly, giving reasons for what they say, and unmindful of abuses, calumnies

Friday, 8 July 2016

Religious scriptures were written at a time when science had not sufficiently developed. Most of them contain unscientific mumbo jumbo and hocus pocus, like saying God created the universe in six days ( this is said both in the Bible and in the Quran ), or that God created Adam and Eve ( Eve from Adam's ribs ), as said in the Bible, or that Allah created man from clots of blood, as said in the Quran, or that God came in the form of avatars to the earth, or that there is transmigration of the souls, as said by Hindu scriptures.

The Veda, Quran and the Bible claim to be the final word, and cannot be questioned or changed.

But the whole development of science has been by questioning everything, observation, experimentation and reasoning. Science does not accept anything as final. A theory accepted yesterday may be discarded today, if proved untrue. Thus, the Ptolemaic theory that the sun goes around the earth was proved to be false by Copernicus ( though Copernicus' theory was not accepted for a long time because it apparently contradicted the Bible, and Galileo narrowly escaped from the Inquisition for believing it, by recanting his view ).

Newton said in 1665 that light travelled as particles ( the corpuscular theory ), but in 1678 Huygens propounded his Fresnel Principle, saying that it travelled as waves. Then in 1900 Max Planck demonstrated by his Quantum Theory that light travelled as particles ( quanta ), and this theory was subsequently developed by Quantum Mechanics of De Broglie, Heisenberg and Schrodinger that particles can be construed of as waves, and vice versa.

Similarly, J.J. Thompson's 'plum pudding' model of the atom, according to which electrons were embedded on the surface of the atom ( like plum puddings ) was superseded by Rutherford's theory ( through his famous gold foil experiment which revealed scattering of alpha raya ) that electrons move in orbits outside the nucleus, like the planets orbiting the sun.

Newton's theory of gravity was modified by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.

So there is no final word in science. Everything can be questioned, on the basis of reason, observation and experimentation. Since religion does not permit that, I cannot accept it.

As regards the existence of God, I have already given my reasons why I cannot accept it in an earlier posst. Hence I am an atheist.

If India is to progress, we must give up religion and go over to science

He confuses between a hypothesis and a theory. He says that a theory is the same as a hypothesis. This is not true. A hypothesis is only a proposed idea, which has yet to be confirmed. But when it is tested and confirmed, it becomes a theory. So there is no difference between a theory and a fact.

We talk of Einstein's Theory of Relativity, not Einstein's Law of Relativity. Similarly, we talk of Max Planck's Quantum Theory, etc. These theories had been tested, before they were accepted as theories. So they are no longer hypotheses.

Darwin's theory is just not a hypothesis, it is accepted overwhelmingly in the scientific community as being true.

This theory was initially criticized by many persons, but later received overwhelming acceptance by the scientific community, and its chief detractors are religious people, because it contradicts what is written in the Quran or the Bible. But similarly, Copernicus' theory ( that the earth goes around the sun, and not vice versa ) was not accepted for a long time in Europe because it contradicted the Bible.

Of course after its enunciation in 1859 it has been developed ( e.g. by integrating it with genetics ), just as Newton's physics was developed by Max Planck, Einstein, Heisenberg, etc, but no genuine scientist has reverted to Creationism i.e. the religious theory that man was created by God.

It is universally accepted by scientists that man evolved from ape like creatures, and these evolved from creatures lower down, and so on.

Zakir Naik is just a stupid fundamentalist, and his only authority is the Quran, which is as outdated, and as full of humbug, mumbo jumbo and hocus pocus as is to be found in the Vedas or the Bible or any other religious scripture.

If India is to progress we must give up religion and go over to science

Thursday, 7 July 2016

Zakir Naik is in the news these days, and a lot of people have through fb asked me my views about him. So let me respond.

In my opinion Zakir Naik's views are totally unscientific and stupid, but since long he has been peddling them among the gullible public, particularly among his large followers in the dumb section of the Muslims.

We may here consider just one of his several half baked, crackpot ideas, about Creation and Darwin's Theory of Evolution.

Zakir Naik implicitly believes that all that is written in the Quran is literally true, and so he believes that the Universe was created by Allah, and the theory of evolution is false.

Ex-Muslim Atheist making stupid Zakir Naik angry on evolution

According to the Quran :

" Your Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in six days and then settled Himself firmly on the Throne... (Qur'an, 7:54) "

Thus, according to the Quran, the Universe was created in 6 days.

The Quran also says :

" "Do not the unbelievers see that the skies (space) and the earth (matter) were joined together (as one unit of creation) and we ( i.e. God ) ripped them apart?" 21:30.

And also :

" Proclaim!

In the name of thy Lord and Cherisher, who created -

created man, out of a mere clot of congealed blood. "

-- Sura 96:1-2

All this is hocus pocus and mumbo jumbo.

It is like what is said in the Bible :

God, created the heaven and the earth in six days, starting with darkness and light on the first day, and ending with the creation of mankind on the sixth day. God then rested on, and blessed the seventh day ( (Genesis 1:1–2:3).

Again, all hocus pocus and mumbo jumbo.

One is reminded of the famous ' Monkey Trial ' ( the trial of the American school teacher John Scopes who taught Darwin's theory of evolution to his students, thus apparently violating the Butler Act ) in Dayton, Tennessee,USA in 1925.

In this trial, the defence lawyer, Clarence Daarrow, exposed the stupidity of the Biblical version of the creation of the Universe and of man, by his cross examination of William Jennings Bryan who believed in that version.

Darrow said that the stories of the Bible could not be scientific and should not be used in teaching science. He told Bryan, "You insult every man of science and learning in the world because he does not believe in your fool religion."[

Bryan, gauging the effect the session was having, snapped that Darrow's purpose was "to cast ridicule on everybody who believes in the Bible". Darrow, with equal vehemence, retorted, "We have the purpose of preventing bigots and ignoramuses from controlling the education of the United States."

The theory of evolution was first propounded by Charles Darwin in 1859 in his famous book ' The Origin of the Species '.

This theory was initially criticized by many persons, but later received overwhelming acceptance by the scientific community, and its chief detractors were religious people. Of course after its enunciation in 1859 it has been developed, just as Newton's physics was developed by Max Planck, Einstein, Heisenberg, etc, but no genuine scientist has reverted to Creationism i.e. the religious theory that man was created by God.

It is universally accepted by scientists that man evolved from ape like creatures, and these evolved from creatures lower down, and so on.

But how did the simplest form of life, i.e. single cell creatures come into existence ? As yet this is not clear, though several theories have been advanced.

It is suggested that after the earth split off from the sun and cooled down over millions of years a Primordial Soup was created, from which life evolved. In other words, life evolved from dead matter by certain chemical reactions. Indeed there are certain entities like viruses which can neither be considered fully living creatures( because they lack cell structure, which is considered necessary to be counted as life ) nor dead matter, but something in between.

As regards creation of the Universe, the religious argument that everything must have a creator has an inherent fallacy. If everything must have a creator, then the creator of the Universe ( God ) too must have a creator, i.e. a super creator, and that super creator too must have a creator, i.e.a super super creator, and so on. This is known as the fallacy of the infinite regress. So the assumption that everything must have a creator is not universally true.

The only reality in the universe is matter ( or rather matter-energy, since Einstein demonstrated by his formula e=mc2 that matter and energy are two forms of the same substance, like water and ice ). But matter is in motion, and the laws of this motion can be discovered by scientific research.

It may be asked : where did matter come from ? The answer is that matter came from matter, but its form often changes. There was no supernatural being which created matter. It always existed.

However exciting discoveries were made in the 20th century relating to the origin of the Universe.

The American scientist Edwin Hubble began to make observations with the hundred inch telescope on Mount Wilson, in the 1920s.

Hubble found that stars are not uniformly distributed throughout space, but are gathered together in vast collections called galaxies. By measuring the light from galaxies, Hubble could determine their velocities. He was expecting that as many galaxies would be moving towards us as were moving away. This is what one would have in a universe that was unchanging with time. But to his surprise, Hubble found that nearly all the galaxies were moving away from us. Moreover, the further galaxies were from us, the faster they were moving away. The universe was not unchanging with time as everyone had thought previously. It was expanding. The distance between distant galaxies was increasing with time.

The expansion of the universe was one of the most important intellectual discoveries of the 20th century, or of any century. It transformed the debate about whether the universe had a beginning. If galaxies are moving apart now, they must have been closer together in the past. If their speed had been constant, they would all have been on top of one another about 15 billion years ago. Was this the beginning of the universe?

This resulted in the Big Bang Theory or Expanding Universe Theory i.e. the theory that all matter in the Universe was at one time clustered together at one place, but then there was an explosion of some sort ( a Big Bang ), which caused material bodies to be hurled away, and they are still hurling away. at great speeds.

However, an alternate theory has also been advanced known as the Oscillating Universe Theory. According to this theory, while presently no doubt galaxies are flying away from each other at great speeds, i.e. the Universe is expanding, there will later be a contraction of the Universe, and galaxies will then again start moving towards each other, and this expansion-contraction i.e. oscillation will go on endlessly.

So the problem is as yet scientifically unresolved.

But this does not mean we should fall back on religion. All religions are superstitions and false and full of humbug, and the truth can only be known by science. However, unlike religion, science does not claim that what it says is the final word. One cannot change the Vedas or the Bible or the Quran. But scientific theories can be changed, if proof is presented. For instance, the English scientist Newton presented his corpuscular theory of light in 1665, according to which light travels as particles. But in 1678 the Dutch scientist, applying his Fresnel Principle, established that light travelled as waves. Much later, in 1900, Max Planck advanced his Quantum Theory, according to which light travels as particles. Still later, the French scientist De Broglie showed that particles can be regarded as waves, and this Quantum Mechanics was developed further by Heisenberg, Schrodinger, etc.

Earlier J.J. Thomson propounded his ' plum pudding ' model of the atom, according to which electrons were embedded on the surface of the nucleus in an atom, but later Rutherford demonstrated by his famous gold foil experiment ( the scattering of alpha rays ) that electrons were orbiting outside the nucleus, like the planes orbiting the sun.

Thus, science is always developing. Many things which were unknown to us earlier are known today, and many things unknown to us today may be known to us in the future

I firmly believe, and have repeatedly said, that the vast majority of men and women are good by nature, as my great teacher Rousseau taught me. That is why I have repeatedly said, and I firmly believe, that over 99% Muslims, and 99% Pakistanis, are good by nature, just as I believe that over 99% Hindus and 99% Indians are good by nature.

And yet the truth is that today most Hindus ( though not all ) are communal, hating Muslims, and most Muslims ( though not all ) are also communal, hating Hindus. How has this happened ?

It has happened because of the power of propaganda. Most people are undoubtedly good, but they also simpletons. By propaganda their minds can be poisoned, and made to hate different communities. And modern technology has made propaganda an even more powerful weapon in the hands of the tiny, but powerful, wicked minority to do that.

An example of this is what happened in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s. The Nazi propaganda against the Jews, blaming them for all the ills in Germany ( unemployment, inflation, etc ) was so strong that almost the whole German nation at that time went mad, which led to the Holocaust.

Propaganda has been used since ancient times. To keep the masses under subjugation, religious propaganda was used by the ruling classes. Thus, in India the karma theory was used. The depressed classes ( dalits etc ) were told that they had done bad deeds in their previous birth because of which they have been born in a low caste, and if they wish to be reborn in a higher caste they should willingly serve and obey their masters.

In Christianity, the Sermon on the Mount was used, where Jesus Christ is said to have said :

" Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also " ( Bible : New Testament : Matthew :5, 38 and 39 ). In other words, one should not manfully fight against one's oppressors, but should yield to him.

Such propaganda is needed by the rulers because it is not enough to use the sword to keep the oppressed masses under subjugation. The masses must also be mentally brainwashed into believing that they deserve their fate, and so should willingly accept it.

In wars, truth is the first casualty, and people are taught to hate their enemies, as was successfully done in the First World War by all sides by massive propaganda.

As I said in my article ' The Truth about Pakistan ' ( see online, and on my blog ), there was no communal feeling in India before 1857. Hindus and Muslims then lived together in amity. Hindus used to participate in Eid and Muharram, and Muslims in Holi and Diwali. Muslim rulers, e.g. the Nawab of Avadh, used to organize Ramlila, etc, and almost all Muslim rulers were thoroughly secular e.g. the Mughals, Nawab of Murshidabad, Tipu Sultan, etc ( about Tipu and Aurangzeb see my blogs ). There were no communal riots before 1857. All of them commence after 1857.

It was only after the Mutiny of 1857 that communalism was wickedly injected into our body politic by the British. Having suppressed the Mutiny, in which Hindus and Muslims jointly fought against them, the British realized that the only way to keep India under their control was divide and rule. So directives came from London to the British authorities in India to generate hatred between Hindus and Muslims ( see online B.N. Pande's ' History in the Service of Imperialism ' ).

Thereafter a systematic and sustained policy of divide and rule was followed by the British authorities in India. The British Collector used to call the Hindu Pandit secretly, pay him some money, and tell him to speak against Muslims, and similarly he would call the Muslim Maulvi secretly, pay him money, and tell him to speak against Hindus. Agent provocateurs were hired to generate communal hatred. Loud music was played before mosques to disturb Muslims in their prayers, so that they may think Hindus are doing this mischief, and carcasses of cows were thrown overnight into Hindu temples, so that Hindus may think the mischief is by Muslims. Separate electorates were created by the Minto Morley ' Reforms ' of 1909. A Muslim University ( AMU ) was created, and a Hindu University ( BHU ). The propaganda was done that Hindi is the language of Hindus, and Urdu of Muslims ( when the truth is that Urdu was the common language of all educated people, whether Hindu, Muslim or Sikh, in large parts of India upto 1947 ). Ultimately, the bogus two nation theory was propagated, that Hindus and Muslims are two separate nations

All this large scale, systematic, false propaganda, spread by various methods, resulted in the tragedy of Partition in 1947 ( see Manto's stories about Partition ), and the creation of a fake, artificial state called Pakistan ( see my article ' Tbe Truth about Pakistan ' ). Even after 1947 there have been powerful vested interests propagating hatred between Hindus and Muslims, and the result is that the communal poison is still deep inside us.

To counteract this poison, I have been administering anti dotes, through my articles, speeches, etc, by patiently and coolly explaining to the people of India ( in which I include Pakistan ) that this communal hatred is not something intrinsic, but was artificially generated by the British, often using their Indian agents.

I know that it will take a long time to completely eliminate the communal poison, since it has been injected into our society continuously for almost one and a half centuries. So repeated doses of anti dotes must be given, maybe for a period of 10-20 years. It is a work of great patience, and requires clearly explaining the truth to our countrymen, and counteracting the false propaganda, but all patriotic intellectuals must join in this historic effort.

I am sad to know about this incident. But this is the inevitable result of creating a theological state in this sub continent with so much diversity. Pakistan has become a Juraissic Park.
The Pakistanis of today have to pay for the sins of their forefathers, who insisted on Partition.
As the Bible says, " You have sown the wind, and now you will reap the whirlwind " ( Hosea 8: 7 )

Religion and Science are diametrically opposed to each other. They are poles apart, and it is nonsense to say that they compliment each other.

1. Religion says that there is a supernatural entity called God, which is immortal, permanent, all powerful, merciful, all good, etc

Science does not believe in supernatural entities. It does not believe anything in the Universe is permanent. Everything is changing and in flux, in accordance with some laws, which can be discovered by scientific research.

Science holds that there are no supernatural entities like God, angels, fairies, demons,witches or soul ( and therefore there is no such thing as transmigration of the soul, or resurrection on Judgment Day ), and that nothing is permanent, everything is changing, and in a state of flux, in accordance with certain laws which can be discovered by scientific research.

Science holds that the only reality is matter, which is in motion according to certain laws.

Some people ask : who created matter ? The answer is : there is no creator of matter. Matter came from matter, though the form keeps changing.

2. With every step science advances, religion recedes. Thus, people at one time thought that small pox is due to the anger of a goddess ( mata ), but now we know it is because of a virus, and can be prevented by innoculation. People at one time thought that rains are caused by a rain god, Indra, and so if there is drought we have to propitiate that god in some way ( many people in India still believe that ). Today we know that rains are caused by the build up of low pressure areas over a heated land. People at one time believed that Adam and Eve were created by God. Later Darwin proved that men evolved from the apes.

3. Religion relies on faith and divine revelation.

Science relies on observation, experiment and reason.

4. Religion claims to say the final word, and cannot be changed. Thus, the Vedas, the Quran, the Bible, etc cannot be changed.

In science there is no final word, and scientific theories can, and have been, regularly tested and changed.

For example, Newton said in 1666 that light travelled as particles ( the corpuscular theory ). But in

1678 the Dutch scientist Huygens' propunded his Fresnel principle that light travelled as waves. Much later Max Planck propounded his Quantum theory which said that light travelled as discrete particles. Still later, Quantum mechanics, as propounded by De Broglie, and as developed by Heisenberg, Schrodinger, etc, said that particles can be conceived of as waves ( and vice versa )

5. Religion says that the Universe was created at a particular time by God, with all living beings. But Darwin proved by his theory of evolution, that creatures have evolved.

6. Religion says that there has to be a Creator of the Universe, which is God.

Science says that there is no such Creator. The only reality in the Universe is matter ( or rather matter-energy, since matter and energy are two forms of the same substance, as Einstein proved ), and matter is in motion, in accordance with certain laws, which can be discovered by scientific research. If it is asked where did matter come from, the answer is matter came from matter.

If it is said that every thing must have a creator, then that creator too must have a creator. i.e. a super creator, and that super creator too must have a creator, i.e. a super super creator, and so on. This is known as the fallacy of the infinite regress.

7. Religion says that God is all powerful, merciful and all good. If that is so, then why do millions of children in the world suffer from hunger, cold, etc ? Why does God, who is said to be merciful, not have mercy on them and give them food, clothes, shelter, etc ?

Why is there so much poverty, unemployment, malnourishment, sickness etc in the world ? If God is

powerful and merciful, why does he not abolish these and give everyone a decent life ?

It is true that some scientists believed in God. But that only proves that scientific and unscientific ideas can co-exist in the same head, and it will take a long time, probably several generations, before unscientific ideas are altogether eliminated

All religions are superstitions and false. The truth lies in science, which is constantly developing.

In my blog ' The Caste System in India ' ( see justicekatju.blogspot.in ) I stated :

" The caste system is one of the greatest social evils plaguing our country today. It is acting as a powerful social obstruction to our progress, and a political divisive force in our country at a time when it is absolutely essential for us to be united if we wish to face our nation’s challenges. It is a curse on our country which must be eradicated if we wish to progress "

" Many people think that the caste system did a lot of damage to India. This is undoubtedly true of modern times. But it must also be said that in the feudal age the caste system did good to India because it corresponded to the feudal occupational division of labour in society , which resulted in the great development of the productive forces (at that time). "

Thus, while the caste system is a totally reactionary and evil institution today, at an earlier stage of our historical development it was progressive and good.

This may sound a contradiction, and so has to be explained.

As stated by the great British economist Adam Smith in his book ' The Wealth of Nations ', division of labour results in great development of the productive forces in society.

In feudal society, while the primary occupation of most people was agriculture, there was also a handicraft industry, and the caste system contributed to the growth of this. As stated in my blog, every handicraft vocation became a caste e.g. potter, smith, cobbler, textile manufacturer, barber, etc.

But there was also a need of some mental workers ( intellectuals ) in feudal society, and these were the Brahmins.

In feudal society there was no universal education ( as in industrial society ), firstly because there were no resources to provide them, and secondly there was no need to educate everyone, as agriculture and handicraft industry could be carried on by illiterates.

And yet there was need in feudal society for some mental workers too. This was for two reasons.

Firstly, in those days education, which was provided only to Brahmins, was mainly theological, and religion was needed by the ruling class to keep people pacified. People were told that they should accept their fate, since God had so ordained ( hoye wahi jo Ram rakh raakha ). The Brahmins were the custodians of theology, and so they performed this job of keeping people under mental subjugation, using religion for this purpose

Secondly, while feudal society was relatively stable ( as contrasted to industrial society which is dynamic and fast changing ), there was still some progress in it, however slow. For this, intellectuals were required, and these were the Brahmins.

Thus, Brahmins served a dual role in feudal society

The Brahmins, a small minority, were the only educated section of society in feudal times, and the rest of society, even the kings and aristocrats, were broadly illiterates ( with some exceptions ), and their language was Sanskrit This may be compared with the situation in Europe, where the only educated section of society ( with some exceptions ) were the priests, whose language was Latin.

Thus, Brahmins performed a dual role in society. The first was the role of keeping people under mental subjugation ( so that they may not revolt against the oppressive system ), the other being to help society in its progress.

As stated above, division of labour leads to great progress. In feudal society, the Brahmins were a small section of people who were left free to do mental work, the rest of society providing them for their material needs. Without this division of labour progress would have been impossible.

We may compare this with the situation in ancient Greece and Rome. These were societies based on slavery, and slavery in those days played a progressive role, because it left a section of society free to do mental work, their material needs being provided for by slaves.. No doubt the condition of slaves was very bad, but without slavery we would not have had Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Democritus, Pythogaras, Hippocrates, Homer, Aeschylus, Herotodus, Archemides, and the other great men of science and art in ancient times.

Similarly, while the caste system resulted in great oppression of the dalits, etc it also had a positive aspect. Without an intellectual section of society ( the Brahmins ) there would have been no Aryabhat, Sushrut, Charak, Kalidas, Panini, Vijnaneshwar, Valmiki, Kapila, Gautam and the other great Indian philosophers and men of science, art, law, etc.

So when we consider the caste system, and in particular the role of Brahmins, we must keep this aspect also in mind. The matter must be considered scientifically, not emotionally

Tuesday, 5 July 2016

Before the great French Revolution of 1789 there were several decades of ideological struggle in France. Great thinkers like Voltaire, Rousseau and the French Encyclopedists launched a powerful attack on the feudal institutions, customs and ideas then prevailing, which helped in the transition of feudal Europe to a modern Europe.

Similarly, in India, a powerful attack in the realm of ideas has to be launched against feudal ideas and customs, e.g. casteism, communalism and superstitions to sweep away the centuries of feudal and irrational filth and falsehood, which is widespread here, and this is the job of patriotic, modern minded intellectuals.

Before great political changes can happen in India there has to be a sustained, long drawn ideological struggle, like that waged by Voltaire, Rousseau, etc. in Europe.

But where are the Indian intellectuals today? Where are our Voltaires and Rousseaus ? There seems to be a total intellectual vacuum in India. Our so called 'intellectuals' have totally prostituted themselves, and have become almost entirely money minded, caring only for their own comforts and rozi roti. Where are our great writers today, like Sharad Chandra, Premchand, Kazi Nazrul Islam, Subramania Bharathi, Faiz, Manto, etc ?

I do not claim to be the only genuine intellectual today in India. There must be others too. But why are they silent when the country is facing such massive problems ? Is it my job alone to speak out ?

For centuries our people have been brainwashed by the caste and religious ideology of the feudal system which existed in India, and by vested interests which want to keep our country backward, with myths, irrational and backward nonsense, and falsehood. All this needs to be swept away if great changes are to take place in India

Today I find myself alone in trying to bear this burden. But so be it.

The mainstream Indian media do not publish my views, obviously because they are against the interests of the corporates who control them, and does not increase TRP ( for which lives of film stars, cricket, astrology, babas, etc are most suitable ). So my only recourse is the social media, and this is the reason I am often on Facebook and my blog.

Sunday, 3 July 2016

In Pakistan Ahmadis and Shias are often being attacked or killed, dargahs bombed. human rights activists and journalists, etc brutally murdered.

Ahmadis believe that after Prophet Mohammed there was a Prophet Ghulam Ahmad in the 19th Century. Are they breaking anyone's head or cutting off anyone's limbs by saying this ? Those who believe that Mohammed was the last prophet are entitled to do so, and they may also say that Ahmadis are not Musli...ms ( just as Ahmadis may say the same about them). But what right have they to kill Ahmadis, burn their mosques, and beat up their children ? This is just hooliganism, goondagardi, and jahaalat.

Similarly, when the Shias do not accept the first three Khalifas (Abu Bakr, Omar and Usman) as genuine, and regard them as usurpers, are they breaking anyone's head or cutting off anyone's limbs ? They are not preventing Sunnis from holding that belief. Then what right has anyone to kill them or burn their mosques or beat up their children ? This is simply hooliganism and jahaalat.

Many Muslims of Wahabi thinking believe that going to dargahs is butparasti ( worship of idols), since dargahs have graves of Sufi saints, and such persons believe that going to dargahs is worship of graves, which is idol worship prohibited by Islam.

Such people need not go to dargahs if they do not wish to, but why should they prevent others from doing so, and why should dargahs be bombed ? This is just hooliganism and jahaalat. In fact 80% Muslims not only in India but also in Pakistan and Bangladesh go to dargahs, and Hindus also go there.

We need tolerance if our country is to survive and prosper, otherwise it will become another Jurassic Park like parts of Pakistan, where 1000 girls are stoned to death every year for alleged adultery, blasphemy laws,abduction, forcible conversion, etc are used to persecute non-Muslims, health workers who give polio drops to children and vaccinate them are killed, human rights activists,

journalists, etc are brutally murdered.

In a subcontinent of such diversity as ours only tolerance and secularism can keep us together and take our country forward towards prosperity. But as for fanatics and bigots, no mercy should be shown to them. They must be eradicated like mad dogs

I am of the opinion that section 377 of the Indian Penal Code which makes 'unnatural' sex a criminal offence should either be deleted by Parliament, or struck down as unconstitutional by the Courts, as it violates the right to privacy which has by judicial interpretation been included in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution ( the right to life and liberty ).

In Lawrence vs. Texas, 593 U.S. 558 ( 2003 ) the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Texas law against homosexuality, thereby making homosexual activity legal throughout USA. In my opinion the Indian Supreme Court should do the same, and there should be freedom in this regard.

That having been said, I still regard homosexual activity as unnatural. After all. the primary purpose of sex is to have children, so that the human species may continue.

Therefore ordinarily the natural attraction is between male and female. There is such a thing as nature, and one cannot deny it.

However, I am on a much more fundamental issue.

The major issues in the world are poverty, unemployment, malnourishment, lack of healthcare and good education, etc. All this shouting and screaming about gay rights is, in my opinion, a subtle method to divert attention from these major issues, to a relatively far lesser issue, that is, gay rights. When people cannot solve the major issues, they seek to shove them in the background, and rake up some issue of a relatively lesser importance, and project it as if this is the real issue facing the world.

ISIS I was asked to write a post on ISIS. Frankly, I have little idea about it. All I could gather about it is from the internet and the media.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant It is said to be a fundamentalist Muslim organization, which has set up a Caliphate. But the Caliphate was a reactionary, feudal institution, which was abolished by the great Turkish leader Kemal Mustafa Ataturk, whom I admire, in the 1920s. Attempts to revive it are reactionary and stupid. I wonder who finances them, supplies them weapons, etc, and directs them from behind ? I am always suspicious of religious leaders who enter into politics, and movements which have a religious colour, e.g. the Sanyasi movement in the late 18th century in Bengal ( depicted in Bankim Chandra's novel ' Anand Math ' ), the Khilafat movement in India ( which Gandhi supported ), Umar Mukhtar, Ayatollah Khomeini and Muqtada al Sadr, whom I regard as feudal minded idiots, and ISIS. Such leaders and such movements weaken the people by dividing them on religious lines, and tend to take people backwards into the middle ages, instead of taking them forward into the modern age. They are therefore usually enemies of the people, while posing to be fighters for freedom

Vilakshan Reeti I had written in an earlier post that the verse ' Mohe na naari naari ke roopa ' ( a woman cannot admire the beauty of another woman ) in the Ramcharitmanas of Tulsidas was from the Baalkand. Now on reading Ramcharitmanas again I found it is from the Uttarkand. Kakbhushandiji ( a crow ) said it to Garudji ( an eagle ). So I hasten to correct it

An Indian friend of mine who has lived in Germany for 25 years ( and still lives there ) is on a visit to India, and came to meet me.

He said that Germans admitted a lot of foreigners, including Turks, Syrians, Iraqis, etc because of the feeling of guilt in sending 6 million Jews to gas chambers. They wanted to show that they are not bad people.

But this is recoiling on them. Right wing groups are increasing, thinking their jobs are being take...n away by foreigners, and attacks on foreigners may begin.

He said that it is safer in Berlin, but in Dresden, which was bombed heavily during the Second World War, it is very unsafe for foreigners, and he would advise them not to go there. A right wing party called PEGiDA is inciting such feelings. The same is the position in many other German cities. After Brexit, this has increased